I wouldn't try to argue whether legal status is a more or less important attribute than any other. However, where known, it is a useful piece of information. In countries that do not have 'right to roam' and where it is therefore illegal (at least a trespass) to walk on a path across private land unless it is legally designated as a 'public footpath' it is useful for a walker to know whether or not (s)he has any right to be there - for example if challenged. So in such countries the legal status is as much a part of "whether you should use a certain path" (to quote your words) as the physical condition. Some people may choose to ignore the legal status ... but that is a personal decision and other people might at least like to know when they are doing so!
_____ From: tagging-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:tagging-boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Steve Bennett Sent: 08 December 2009 00:43 To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools Subject: Re: [Tagging] bicycle=no On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 11:23 AM, Roy Wallace <waldo000...@gmail.com> wrote: In Australia, we ARE tagging paths generally with "unknown (or no) legal status". Should we *guess* the legal status and use footway/cycleway etc., or use highway=path + surface + width? Or ignore the legal status entirely and map on the basis of common practice. Why was "legal status" chosen as the most important attribute to map? Surely what matters most is whether or not you should use a certain path, regardless of what the "legal status" is. (Hopefully I'll find some example where it's "illegal" to walk/ride somewhere, but everyone does it.) Steve No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.710 / Virus Database: 270.14.98/2551 - Release Date: 12/07/09 19:34:00
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
